Comments on: Supermicro, you suck! http://peawee.net/2007/07/10/supermicro-you-suck/ peawee's funky little corner of the internet Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:42:30 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Peawee http://peawee.net/2007/07/10/supermicro-you-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-784 Peawee Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:20:46 +0000 http://peawee.net/2007/07/10/supermicro-you-suck/#comment-784 To begin with, your IP address appears to be registered with supermicro.com, which would indicate you work there or are otherwise associated with SuperMicro. I don't mind that companies take the time to defend their products when those of us who work with their products complain about them, but let's keep your origins honest. And just in case you're not following up on this blog, I'm going to copy and paste you this in an email. Moving on, why doesn't anybody <i>say</i> any of this? By now, it's almost assumed that SATA II is what is meant by SATA; almost all the new drives are SATA II these days, so what's the point? I'd be far less grumbly about the chassis if it were clearly stated that SATA means SATA I. I don't mind buying things that are a touch sub-optimal, but as an admin for a department with limited funding, we just can't afford to buy things to try them and see if they work or not, and we can't afford the package deals from Sun, IBM, or Dell for the amount of storage we honestly need. It's really disappointing to believe we've gotten under $1000 per TB, just to see that price double again just because of poorly designed, implemented, and advertised standards and hardware. To begin with, your IP address appears to be registered with supermicro.com, which would indicate you work there or are otherwise associated with SuperMicro. I don’t mind that companies take the time to defend their products when those of us who work with their products complain about them, but let’s keep your origins honest. And just in case you’re not following up on this blog, I’m going to copy and paste you this in an email.

Moving on, why doesn’t anybody say any of this? By now, it’s almost assumed that SATA II is what is meant by SATA; almost all the new drives are SATA II these days, so what’s the point? I’d be far less grumbly about the chassis if it were clearly stated that SATA means SATA I. I don’t mind buying things that are a touch sub-optimal, but as an admin for a department with limited funding, we just can’t afford to buy things to try them and see if they work or not, and we can’t afford the package deals from Sun, IBM, or Dell for the amount of storage we honestly need.

It’s really disappointing to believe we’ve gotten under $1000 per TB, just to see that price double again just because of poorly designed, implemented, and advertised standards and hardware.

]]> By: Storage Doctor http://peawee.net/2007/07/10/supermicro-you-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-783 Storage Doctor Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:59:45 +0000 http://peawee.net/2007/07/10/supermicro-you-suck/#comment-783 As you may very well know, this is an industry-wide problem at the current time with all of the SAS controllers available on the market. While SAS controllers are supposed to be backward compatible with SATA drives, the reality is that they basically don't work yet with SATA-II drives. Let's hope that the industry gets its act together soon. As you may very well know, this is an industry-wide problem at the current time with all of the SAS controllers available on the market. While SAS controllers are supposed to be backward compatible with SATA drives, the reality is that they basically don’t work yet with SATA-II drives. Let’s hope that the industry gets its act together soon.

]]>